Revision as of 08:11, 28 May 2015

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/M

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 21

Dead/Dirty Skin

List of ways I could peel/remove dead/dirty skin off of my body?

Any idea friends?

Mr. Prophet (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see Exfoliation.--Shantavira| 07:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Did I ever mention this: You Wikipedians are AWESOME! -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You may have mentioned it - but without references, we're not going to accept it as fact. :-} SteveBaker (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

How about the trust based factor that we have and use while editing articles, advising...virtue... -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Famous single people?

Presidents, celebrities and almost anyone of public or corporate significance is married, and usually with kids. Like, defacto.

Aren't there any famous names who don't fit into the above? Or is it somehow culturally unacceptable? Why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.4 (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, we could start with John Browne, Prince Harry to name just two.--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It depends what you mean. Firstly there are obviously plenty of young people who have never been married, I presume you're more thinking of older people, although nearly anyone who isn't currently married and is of sufficient age could probably marry in the future if they aren't already dead (but not necessarily to the person they want to marry). Even so, there are plenty of people who fit the above who are not currently married, but may have been married before and may have had kids, whether from or outside of marriage. There are people like Oprah Winfrey, Ricky Gervais and in many countries plenty of people who are in a same sex relationship who have as far as we know never been married for various reasons, but have been with the same partner for many years. There are people like Hugh Grant and Al Pacino who have as far as we know never been married but may have been in long term relationships and do have kids (whether they came from these relationships or not). I can't think of any off hand, but there are obviously some who've had kids but have never been in a long term relationship (there may be some who are forthcoming about it, but there are also obviously plenty of people who've don't talk about it and many who aren't even asked). Then there are people like Condoleezza Rice who may have been engaged but never married (who may or may not have had long term relationships). Finally there are obviously people without kids (as far as we know), who've never been married, enganged or in a long term relationship. As with my earlier point, knowing precisely who is in this list is difficult since people may not talk about their relationships but Ralph Nader possibly fits in this list. I presume you're excluding modern popes and other religious figures like the Dalai Lama who say they are celibate. Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• The singer Morrissey, who has had a handful of romantic relationships here and there, has some interesting perspectives on his own sexuality and sexual identity. For a large part of his life, he claimed he was asexual, and uninterested in sexual or romantic relationships (that has changed somewhat since those earlier mid-1980s statements), and as such, perhaps fits the OP's requirements. Also, there are the majority of the list of Popes, almost all of whom are officially single and celibate, and the majority thereof also probably meant it. There was the U.S. President James Buchanan, who had been engaged at a young age to a woman, but after breaking off the engagement, showed no public interest in romantic relationships at all. There's some speculation that he had a semi-open homosexual relationship with William Rufus King, and yet still others who claim that both men were asexual and celibate, and that the insinuations of homosexuality between them were political smears; we'll likely never know, but at best we can say that we had one U.S. President who was never married. Just some ideas off the top of my head. --Jayron32 13:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty. J. Edgar Hoover and Katharine Hepburn to name one odd pair. And of course any famous Catholic priest, bishop, cardinal or pope. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hoover yes, Hepburn no. As noted in her article, she had been married for 6 years, and had long-term romantic relationships with several men, including Howard Hughes and Spencer Tracy. She did intentionally decline to get married a second time, but strictly she was a divorcee and not single. One that should rather obviously fit the OPs requirements as a famously single historical figure would be Queen Elizabeth I of England. --Jayron32 15:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ted Heath. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's pretty much been taken as a given until recently that the cursus honorum for anyone who wants to become US President includes joining a suitable (Protestant) church and having married, happily, only once. Hence the controversy over Kennedy's Catholicism, and Barack Obama's actual church, as well as his alleged atheism and muslim faith. Reagan was also criticized for some for having had been Catholic and divorced and remarried. Obviously that's changed somewhat, but voters highly dislike infidelity, see the careers of John Edwards, Newt Gingrich and Jim McGreevey. (Anecdata: I also actually know someone who was an atheist in high school who confided he was going to choose a church and join the ROTC as a prelude to entering politics, although I suspect he actually went into intelligence work, given his real aptitudes.) μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• James Buchanan (president 1857–61) never married. Grover Cleveland was unmarried when first elected president in 1884, but got married in 1886. More recently, in Canada, Pierre Trudeau was unmarried when he was first elected prime minister (see note) in 1968, but he got married in 1971. (Note: in the Westminster system the PM is the leader of the party supported by a majority of the House of Commons. Trudeau first became PM on the retirement of the previous Liberal Party leader, Lester Pearson, but there was an election soon after, won by the Liberals, so he was elected PM that year as well.) --174.88.135.200 (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a "Bachelor's A-List". Jesus Christ is probably the most famous, if not André the Giant. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

Or wait, no. It's a list. Close enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Buchanan's widely considered one of the worst presidents, so now we know why. As for Jesus, there's good speculation that he was married, given a man in his position being unmarried would have been borderline scandalous. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Good speculation is about as convincing as bad speculation. But if it helps put André over, I'll buy it. In fact, maybe he married all the Marys, except for his mother Mary, who made him marry Mari-Mac. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

Swoosie Kurtz has never married or had children. Dismas| 21:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Or Sheryl Crow. All she wants to do is have some fun. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

Here are some famous bachelors. Some were "confirmed" bachelors; others just never met the right girl. Spinster doesn't have a corresponding list. -- Jack of Oz 05:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Cliff Richard is not married, though his celibacy has come into question recently (too much access to little boys). KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 05:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Bill Maher's lawyers publicly confirmed him a "confirmed bachelor, and a very public one at that" in Los Angeles Superior Court. That's about as officially single as a living person gets, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, May 23, 2015 (UTC)

If you search WP for "never married", you'll get over 61,000 hits. At least the first 1,000 or so are productive for this question. -- Jack of Oz 06:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

For many years, Stephen Fry was celibate, apparently. He's now married. As an aside, on Monday, he'll hopefully be celebrating something else. --Dweller (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Which Stephen_Fry#Sexuality are we talking about? How does one who's celibate struggle to keep his sexuality secret? (In any case, any reason to mention Stephen Fry is a good reason.) μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Cecil Rhodes was famously, if not notoriously single. IIRC, he would dismiss from his staff men who wanted to marry. --Dweller (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth I never married. Nor did Edward Heath, who was Prime Minister in 1974. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Did they never marry twice, or is there an echo in here? --Jayron32 14:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who aren't married but have children. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, there is some truth that in a number of countries and particularly historicly, not marrying was far less accepted, particularly for a couple or a woman. This had an effect on people where it mattered, especially politicians but also to some extent business people so you're probably more likely to find them having been married. (Of course proportionally, the number of people who lived to a resonable age, weren't someone expected to be celibate like a religious figure but never married was generally AFAIK under 50% although depending on the time and country, you'd need to include less formal marriages.) Some may argue beyond the public acceptance, marriage makes people more likely to succeed in those fields, I make no comment on that matter. There is the case of Helen Clark, who at the time of her marriage didn't really want to marry but felt she had to . If we're talking about historic examples Michael Joseph Savage is another Prime Minister who never married and according to never had a serious relationship with a woman. Many of the more artistic type may also fall in to the never married category. Vincent van Gogh didn't although died relatively young and clearly wanted to marry a few times. Ludwig van Beethoven was I think somewhat similar although lived to a more resonable age. Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Going back in time,Queen Elizabeth I famously never married or had offspring despite continual political pressure to do so,and Isaac Newton and Oliver Heaviside reputedly died virgins. Lemon martini (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

So did Henry the Navigator of Portugal and, presumably, Edward the Confessor as well. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Did Elizabeth I or Ed Heath ever marry? μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

chicken blood or gut meal71.196.51.61 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Under what name the rendering industry produces the chicken blood or gut meal, or if it forms part of another named meal?71.196.51.61 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Blood meal ? Seems to normally be from cattle blood or pig blood, though. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you're asking about Poultry_by-product_meal. You might also be interested in our articles By-product#Animal_sources and animal product. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

May 23

Is it alright to finish your online, second undergraduate degree while taking up law?

Let's leave the issue of practicality aside. I was just wondering if this is possible and if anyone has done this before.49.144.249.71 (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You would need to check with the institutions concerned whether they allow it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You won't be able to do so in the U.S. You'll have a full load of lockstep courses the first year and will not be allowed to take additional hours at any institution beyond that. GregJackP Boomer! 05:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there much value in a second undergraduate degree, especially when you intend to pursue law? —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Where in the world is this notion that one can't take online courses from one college without permission from another college even coming from? The load might be self-limiting, but it's not like admissions officers all report to a central agency, or gossip about their students. I find the premise hugely confusing. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Interracial relationships

Is there any general explanation towards the trend of white women marrying / having relationships with black males. Influence of popular culture? Is it seen is unacceptable for a white male to have a relationship with a black female, but not visa versa? With all things being equal, and the previous statement being false, I would expect a similar number of white males to be with black women, but this just doe not seem to be happening.

Further troubling questions raise out of this. Are men naturally more racist then women?

This is an area that should be ripe for study, are any papers available yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This QUESTION looks racial because of the colours of skins, but could it rather be a social QUESTION..? Akseli9 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Confirmation bias.--TammyMoet (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Since your IP address geolocates to London, I assume that you are asking about the situation in the UK. Do you have any references (such as newspaper stories or magazine articles) which support the premise of your question -- that a disproportionate fraction of heterosexual black / white mixed race relationships involve a black man and a white woman -- or is this based on your personal observation? The United Kingdom Census 2011 collected sufficient data to test you premise, but articles I have seen, such as the Independent's One in 10 relationships now cross racial boundaries, do not address any gender imbalance. -- ToE 15:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

There is some evidence from the US which may support your premise. The Pew Research Center's 2012 report The Rise of Intermarriage says:

Gender patterns in intermarriage vary widely. About 24% of all black male newlyweds in 2010 married outside their race, compared with just 9% of black female newlyweds. Among Asians, the gender pattern runs the other way. About 36% of Asian female newlyweds married outside their race in 2010, compared with just 17% of Asian male newlyweds. Intermarriage rates among white and Hispanic newlyweds do not vary by gender.

I've run across a few blog posts and opinion pieces which propose reasons for this, but haven't located anything which rises to our WP:Reliable Source standards. -- ToE 15:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

As for pop culture influences (movies in particular), black women with white men is generally acceptable, but white women with black men seems to mainly be a thing in movies about interracialism. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, May 23, 2015 (UTC)

From what I could see when I was still living in Europe (France, Spain then Germany), many girls find Black guys attractive cause they are more "masculine" and Asian guys less attractive cause they look less manly. In the same way, I never met any guy who was into Black girls (White men usually see Black girls like manly, loud and not very sexy). Most of men are in the other hand attracted by Asian women. BTW, I'm writing here about Black people who live in Europe (mainly 1st and 2nd generation of Africans who moved or were borm from parents who moved from Africa). Then the culture difference makes it different than in the US where Black and White people are all from the same country and culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.224.64 (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I was about to call bullshit on the "no sexy black European woman" thing, but a Google Image search for "sexy black European woman" only shows two black women at all in the first five pages. They're quite sexy, but definitely seem rare. For some reason, I can't turn SafeSearch off, either, so maybe my Internet's just broken. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Why are the coasts more liberal in the US ?

I knew that coastal states tended to be more liberal, but here's a map also showing that the most liberal towns in each state tend to be on the coasts (the only exception to the pattern I see is in the highly conservative "Deep South", although FL, LA, and TX still have their most liberal towns on the coasts):

So, why is this ? I can think of a few theories:

1) Those living in coastal communities would naturally be more concerned with global warming and rising sea levels, as it will directly affect them.

2) Immigrants tend to settle down in coastal areas, or at least influence those areas before they move on. So, immigrants themselves might tend to be more liberal (certainly regarding immigration policy and benefits for immigrants). Less certain would be the effect on natives living near those immigrants. They might tend to sympathize with all the immigrants they know, but, if they lose their job or have lower wages due to all the immigrants, they might resent that.

3) Do liberals tend to move to coastal areas ?

So, has anyone studied why this pattern exists ? StuRat (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While waiting for the opinion-based discussion here, you might wish to do some browsing here (mostly opinion-based as well, most likely). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait no longer! In my non-expert opinion, liberals generally want personal freedom, so they try to flee the heartland (AKA flyover country), but are stopped by the enormous moats on either side. The more crossable north and south borders are guarded by ice and fire, respectively. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, May 23, 2015 (UTC)

Given the choice, most jump in the fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, May 23, 2015 (UTC)

Here's how oceans make folks calmer and more creative, at least according to "the liberal media", as some uptight and destructive folks call it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, May 23, 2015 (UTC)

1) What does being "calm and creative" have to do with liberal/conservative? 2)IMHO the HuffPo and its readers are the destructive ones and are so uptight as to presume to know how to spend my money better than I do. But then again, this isn't the place for veiled insinuations, opinions or attacks...if you strike yours, I'll strike mine.--William Thweatt 23:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Creativity is about making new things, like they do in liberal arts. Conservatism is about keeping things the same. Liberals want the world to chill out with the oil spills and war and whatnot, and fiscal conservatives want steadily increasing profit. Content people don't replace or desire things, so conservativism is about destroying things and agitating desires. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, May 24, 2015 (UTC)

Please avoid any discussion of the validity of liberalism and confine your answers to why people living on the coasts appear to be more liberal. StuRat (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Appear to who, Stu? You're a long term regular. You know you've posted a request for what can only (appear) be opinion. You take liberal as if it has a well-defined uncontroversial meaning. Beyond that you certainly know that 99% of the world's population lives within 100 miles of the coast. Hence those areas will tend to be more urban. And the ability to live on state subsidized housing, transportation, and so forth is much easier where there are trains and bus routes and tenements. I am sure you are aware Amtrak desperately wants to cut service to rural areas.

Hence the political patronage of such constituencies. Whereas rural areas can't afford to support a welfare state, and people who live there need to have cars and homes and small businesses to support them. Look at the most recent election map of Great Britain. England voted labour in London, Liverpool, Manchester, York, and the Detroitified areas of Wales. The rest of the country wen Liberal/Conservative/UKIP, and Scotland went Scotlish. The cities voted what we in the US would call liberal. All of this is common knowledge and the subject of a huge web inkspillage. But to summarize, Coast=Urban=Socialist. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

City size is one possibility, but many of the most liberal cities in each state aren't the largest, yet are on the coast, so apparently that's not the only factor. (Also note that many rural areas do rely on government handouts, in the form of farm and gas/oil subsidies and interstate highway funds.) StuRat (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Coastal areas are more likely to have outside influence, they may be sea ports or international airports. This would predict not only immigrants are there, but also people that travel and get exposure to different ideas. It would also suggest that x-ports may have different kinds of people to other more isolated coastal communities, say in Alaska. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand that last sentence. What are "x-ports" ? Exports ? "Have" seems to be the wrong word for that part of the sentence, too, or some words are missing. Please clarify. And in Alaska the interior is isolated, while the coastal areas are connected to the outside world (with the possible exception of the north coast, which is still iced-in for most of the year). StuRat (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I think GB meant ex-ports, meaning places that were ports (and either aren't any more or maybe are but where it's not particularly significant any more). Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually I meant airports and seaports together. I should have just said "ports".Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Your question is for the US only and that's quite right. In the rest of the world, coastal does not especially mean liberal/labour/socialist. Quite very often indeed, coastal at the contrary means conservative or far-right reserved areas, made very expensive and unaffordable for the average people (middle class), except for the new lumpen who lives there in ghettos (on the windy and dry hills far from the beach/coast), who don't vote anymore thus will never make it turn liberal. Akseli9 (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If the effect is limited to the US, then that implies something different in US history happened. Perhaps the suburbanization of the US, primarily as a result of the GI Bill, is responsible, as it left cities, including coastal ones, populated by mainly poor people, who tend to be liberal. However, there are some very wealthy beachfront suburban communities, too, such as Pebble Beach.

Perhaps the initial white flight out of cities in the US was mainly conservatives, who didn't want to live in a multicultural city, while the current gentrification of cities is by liberals, who do want to live there. StuRat (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

On the notion of import/export of goods, ideas and people, you might enjoy reading about cosmopolitanism. E.g. NYC and SF are commonly known as cosmopolitan cities, and liberal, and coastal. There are many counter examples to the claim that the most liberal cities within a state are on the coast, e.g. Austin, TX is generally held to be the most liberal city in TX, and is not on the coast. Maps like this might be helpful in establishing your perspective . Finally, consider that liberals tend to be more intelligent and better educated than conservatives: - those are both from known firebrand Satoshi Kanazawa, but see also here , and refs scientific refs therein. So you might want to also look at maps like these , , and make your own conclusions about educational achievement, educational spending, and liberal ideology.SemanticMantis (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarita, Texas, on the Gulf, is listed as the most liberal city in Texas, on the map, and in our Misplaced Pages article. And with a population of only 238, that counters Medeis' theory that cities on the coasts are liberal just because they are large. StuRat (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• The notion above that somehow the US differs from the UK ignores the fact that the UK is entirely coastal (all within 50 miles of the sea), hence the notion that their geography is different is quite irrelevant. All the major cities in Britain are on tidal waterways. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that may be news to the citizens of Birmingham. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Vat just proves my point, innit? One whole effink city in Inklint vat ain't on an estiary. (Ayn Rand.) μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Terms like coastal and nearby can be viewed differently in different countries. Earle Hitchner said: "The difference between America and England is that Americans think 100 years is a long time, while the English think 100 miles is a long way." See also . PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

StuRat, there are historical explanations for this. Going back 100 years or more, the political divisions of the United States were three regions: 1) The South, where the enfranchised white population was profoundly conservative to reactionary. At this point, South Florida was a beach-fringed swamp with very few inhabitants. 2) The North (i.e. Northeast and Midwest), which was divided between Democratic (economically left) industrial cities and moderate Republican small towns and rural areas, with Republicans winning most elections. The industrial cities were mostly coastal or located on the Great Lakes. 3) The West, consisting mainly of progressive Republicans.

Each region underwent its own transformation. In the South, urbanization occurred without much unionization and with more of a race-based than class-based consciousness, with the result that its conservatism persisted in the dominant white population. An exception is the populous east coast of South Florida, settled mainly by migrants from the industrial North, which consequently became relatively leftwing. In the Northeast, urban areas remained economically left, while urban areas in the west maintained their progressive tradition. In the Midwest, urban areas grew largely through migration from their moderate Republican hinterlands, with the result that, say metropolitan Pittsburgh, Cleveland, or Chicago drifted moderately to the right during the 20th century. During the 1960s and 1970s, meanwhile, students at elite universities in the Northeast and on the West Coast were at the center of a counterculture that included a left-leaning political perspective. This was actually a global phenomenon, but it had a regional dimension in the United States for two reasons: 1) Industrial fortunes during the 19th century left certain universities in the Northeast with large endowments that attracted the best scholars and students from around the country and around the world, enhancing the cosmopolitanism of a region that had always attracted many immigrants. 2) California's economic prosperity and progressive politics had a similar effect with the growth of well-funded universities in the early 20th century. The top universities in the Midwest took part in this cultural development, but to a varying extent. There were echoes in the South as well, but the left-leaning counterculture in the United States was really centered in the Northeast and the West Coast.

As a result, the upper middle classes of the Northeast and West Coast share a left-leaning perspective with their urban working classes. By contrast, the upper middle classes of the South and much of the Midwest (with the partial exception of the Upper Midwest) tend to be more conservative, while racialized politics have confined economic leftism in these regions largely to the black minority. The coastal location of these left-leaning groups is mostly accidental, except insofar as that coastal location promoted an openness to immigration and the commercial success that underwrote elite cosmopolitan universities. In response to one of your questions, I believe that studies have shown that people tend to migrate to politically compatible places, so this pattern has been self-reinforcing since the 1960s, with politically left (or in U.S. terms, "liberal") people gravitating to the West Coast or coastal Northeast, and politically conservative people gravitating toward the Sunbelt east of California. Marco polo (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

May 24

how come england gets to enter 4 different teams in the world cup, when every other country only gets 1? that gives england an unfair advantage of winning

how come england gets to enter 4 different teams in the world cup, when every other country only gets 1? that gives england an unfair advantage of winning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.146.34.58 (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

They don't, England sends only one team - the England national football team. Nanonic (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, the UK has separate teams for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Only England has a realistic chance of winning the World Cup so spreading the UK players decreases the chance of winning. History of association football#First International was Scotland vs England, and the International Football Association Board is older than FIFA. The UK wanted to keep their separate teams and I don't think FIFA objected to that. There is a Great Britain Olympic football team since the UK only has one team at the Olympic Games. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

But the Great Britain Olympic football team only rarely competes, since getting the Scottish FA to join in nicely seems to be a difficult trick; see Scottish FA opposes Team GB for Rio Olympics in 2016. Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note also that presuming you mean the FIFA (football) world cup, Scotland haven't qualified since 1998 and never advanced past the group stage, Northern Ireland have only qualified for 3, 1958, 1982 and 1986 and Wales only qualified once in 1958. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

And, it should put the United Kingdom at a disadvantage to have their top players spread out over 4 teams, versus all in one team. You don't win the World Cup with quantity of teams, but with quality. Having more, but weaker, teams would only be an advantage if the winner was chosen at random. StuRat (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The OP geolocates to Brazil. It is a common misconception that UK = England, when in fact, the UK is four different countries. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 16:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Or 5, depending on how you feel about Cornwall. DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's common. Just as we don't see the US as 50 different countries, just as we don't see Germany as 16 different countries, just as we don't see USSR as 15 different countries, we see the UK also as one country, and just like the Netherlands are often called "Holland", the UK are quite commonly called "England". Akseli9 (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

In much the same way as the USA are commonly called "New York"? DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sort of, when everyone from the USA is called Yankees. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course both the use of England for the UK and Holland for the Netherlands is not only incorrect, it is also deeply offensive to a lot of people, a fact that is often missed by foreigners. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that the UK has it both ways. Sometimes it wants to be considered one country, such as the Monarchy of the United Kingdom (you'll look in vain for the Monarchy of Wales or the Monarchy of Northern Ireland; you will find Monarchy of Scotland and Monarchy of England but these both ceased to exist centuries ago). But sometimes, it wants to be considered many countries (such as the 7 teams that compete at the Commonwealth Games). Is it any wonder that many people are confused, as exceedingly amply demonstrated at Terminology of the British Isles. -- Jack of Oz 22:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Fairness is a tough call here. The US team has a pool of 320 million people from which to draw it's team - France has only 66 million. There is a good argument that the US should have to divide it's best players amongst five regional teams in order to make a fairer game. Or since Ghana has a population of just 20 million, perhaps the French should send three regional teams and the USA about fifteen or sixteen of them?

Clearly population size can't be a determining factor here. But the UK is in fact just a grouping of four separate countries - and who is to deny the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern-Irelanders their chance to win? SteveBaker (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be better said that "the US team theoretically has a pool of 320 million people.." The actual pool from which to draw is limited to people who care about soccer, which in the US is proportionately quite small, to say the least. Most Americans think of soccer as "the metric system in short pants"--William Thweatt 22:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say "Clearly population size IS a factor, but not the only one". There should be some type of "net soccer population" ("NSP") measure, of those people who played soccer since they were kids, and had the opportunity to get good coaching and move up to the national team, if they were good enough. In the US only a small portion of the population played soccer since they were kids, so the NSP would be much lower than the total population. However, the NSP can't be larger than the actual population (aside from bringing in "ringers" from other nations), so microstates will have a very small NSP, and thus not much chance at winning the World Cup. Nations with large populations, where soccer is important, would be expected to do well, such as Brazil. Of course, there's also a random factor, as a soccer superstar might happen to be born anywhere. StuRat (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

... the UK is in fact just a grouping of four separate countries. Maybe, but in a very different way from how NATO, for example, is just a grouping of 28 separate countries; or the OECD, or OPEC, or the Warsaw Pact, or ASEAN, or the G8, or many other examples. Reducing the UK down to that simplistic grouping is very misleading. -- Jack of Oz 01:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Europeans, zey are very very violent, for example Yugoslavia voz a very nice kantry, zen zey had vor, now it's five different kantries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KageTora (talk • contribs)

The issue here, which no one has clearly identified, is the peculiar definition of "country" used for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. For the rest of the world, "country" means "sovereign nation-state". At this point, only the United Kingdom as a whole qualifies for the usual definition of "country". No other sovereign nation-state in the world gets to send multiple teams to the World Cup. That's where the question of fairness arises. Why does the United Kingdom get to have the attitude, "We consist of several countries but every other nation-state in the world consists of only one"? I understand completely that each of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom has its own unique history, and in the cases of England, Scotland, and debatably Wales, a misty and distant history of sovereign independence (though that was never true of Northern Ireland; Ulster maybe, but not the 6 counties). But the same is true, and more recently true, of the constituent parts of Italy and Germany, and nobody claims that, say, Mecklenburg is really a separate country and therefore entitled to its own team at the World Cup. Marco polo (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If the different bits of Italy and Germany had bothered to have their own national football teams, and start playing international matches before unification, then they could have their own teams still. They didn't, so they don't. If you don't like our game, then don't play it. make one up for yourself. DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Without commenting on the fairness or not of the situation (which is irrelevant, really. Fairness is what little kids care about when they count the cookies they get for dinner and what their siblings got) that doesn't have any parallels here. The 4 Home Nations national football teams come well after the formation of the UK. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland became United in 1801. Wales had been a formal part of the Kingdom of England the middle 1500s and Scotland and England were united in 1707. The Football Association wasn't even formed until 1863, over 6 decades after Ireland joined the Union and centuries after the others. Technically, the FA is older than Germany, which only united in 1871. So, you are technically wrong on both counts. Just a sayin'. Regardless, each of the Home Nations does get their own national football team (and Rugby teams too!) and that's Just The Way It Is. Rationalizing it is beyond the scope of this board, unless one wishes to look into merely describing the history of these organizations, which one can do already by following links from articles already cited in this discussion.--Jayron32 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no "monarchy of Wales" or "monarchy of Northern Ireland" because Wales never had a king and Northern Ireland has only been a political entity since 1922. When are the monarchies of Scotland and England supposed to have ceased to exist? Elizabeth II is still Queen of England and James II of England was James VII of Scotland. England, Scotland and Wales are no different from, say, the Czech Republic and Slovakia when they were united. The fall of the Iron Curtain didn't change the countries making up Czechoslovakia, and if Scotland were to leave the Union the countries would still be the same. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Monarchy of England and the Monarchy of Scotland both ceased to exist in 1707. She is not the Queen of England nor the Queen of Scotland. She is only the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the context of her role in those lands. The Kingdom of Ireland was a separate realm, and as such, continued to exist until January 1, 1801 when it was Unified with the other two. Northern Ireland is a rump state that is a remnant of this kingdom when the Irish Free State broke away in 1922. Northern Ireland, therefore, has a direct connection to the former Kingdom of Ireland. There was an independent Monarchy of Wales until 1283 or so, though it's ruler was known by the title "Tywysog", usually translated Prince. The last truly independent Prince of Wales was Dafydd ap Gruffydd, who ruled the Principality of Wales until 1283-1284, when the Statute of Rhuddlan ended it's independence, though it was legally a distinct realm under the English crown (the King of England was separately Prince of Wales in the same way that the King of Spain was simultaneously King of Portugal during the years of the Iberian Union). There was a putative independent Prince of Wales in the person of Owain Glyndŵr who revolted against Henry IV, but he was never recognized by the English crown as the rightful Prince. The distinction ended in 1542 when Parliament formally ended the independent Welsh state. So there you go, yes all four home nations were, at one time, all four independent monarchies. All four in order (Wales in 1542, Scotland in 1707, Ireland in 1800, - southern Ireland in 1922) were annexed into a single crown with a single title and a single realm. By the time the FA was created and organized national football began on the British Isles, there were not four separate realms, nor four separate monarchies. Since 1800 (with a border change in 1922) there has been a single monarchy known as the "United Kingdom", and Queen Elizabeth II is the current monarch of THAT single realm. She has never been Queen of England or of Scotland or of Wales or of Ireland. She has always only been Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And England, Scotland, and Wales ARE different from the Czech Republic and Slovakia when they were united. Because they are different countries with a different history and different ways of coming into being. You cannot draw analogies between the organization of one sovereign state and any other in that way. They are all different. --Jayron32 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Fairness may be pointless to debate, since the world is unfair, but it is not "irrelevant", since it was part of the original question, which should be the arbiter of relevance. Despite my earlier comment on—let's call it the anomaly of the special status of the parts of the United Kingdom in FIFA, the explanation for this anomaly is that association football, as such, originated in England, and the first football association, known as The Football Association, was confined to England. The first "international" match was between England and Scotland. As founding entities for the sport, constituent parts of the United Kingdom obtained a special status within FIFA, which formed later. It's a case of first comer's privilege. Marco polo (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

But, as I pointed out above, having more teams makes them less likely to win, not more likely, so it's a disadvantage, not an advantage. Although, admittedly, 4 teams probably get more media coverage than 1 team would. So, if the goal is more publicity and fewer World Cup championships, that's the way to go about it. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

By that argument Charles is the prince of the United Kingdom, but he's not - he's the Prince of Wales. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No, by that argument, he is still the Prince of Wales. As the Queen of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth is free to grant titles as she sees fit. Since Wales is a real place inside her realm, she can grant the title to any of her subject she wishes. By tradition, the Monarch always grants the title to the first born son. But that's neither here nor there. The actual history exists, and doesn't need you to understand it to be true. --Jayron32 18:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Charles is a Prince of the United Kingdom, but not "the Prince of the United Kingdom". He is "the Prince of Wales", but not a Prince of Wales (except in the sense of a particular case of a generic reference to this title). His brothers Andrew and Edward are also Princes of the United Kingdom. These three sons all had these titles from birth, as sons of the sovereign. Their dear old Dad was appointed a P of the UK some years into his marriage, which is why he is now known as Prince Philip, and not by the title he first had upon marriage, the Duke of Edinburgh. -- Jack of Oz 05:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The 1707 Act of Union abolished the Scottish Parliament. I am not aware that it abolished the Kingdom of Scotland as well. According to Whitaker's Almanac, which is a highly reliable source,

The Kingdom of England occupies the southern position of the island of Great Britain.

The Kingdom of Scotland occupies the northern portion of the main island of Great Britain.

Bonnie Prince Charlie referred to his father as "James VIII and III".

Under the heading "The Principality of Wales":

Wales occupies the extreme west of the central southern portion of the island of Great Britain.

You would expect a "principality" to have a prince, and it does. Elizabeth is Supreme (temporal) Governor of the Church of England, not as Queen of Scotland but as Queen of England. She is also the head of the Church of Scotland (and presumably the Scottish Episcopal Church). There is a Church in Wales. The Scottish courts have no jurisdiction in England, and vice versa. Northern Ireland and Scotland have their own parliaments and prime minister. Wales also has a parliament. The proceedings may be conducted in Welsh. If you drive over the Severn Bridge you will come to a sign saying "Welcome to Wales" in Welsh. If you drive to Gretna Green you will come to a sign saying "Welcome to Scotland", possibly in Gaelic. The County of Middlesex has not had a High Sheriff or Lord Lieutenant since 1965 but it does have a cricket team and you can write letters to people who live there. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The places exist as places. The monarchies, as institutions, do not. There is no Queen of Scotland. There is a Queen of the United Kingdom, who reigns over a territory that includes the piece of land called "Scotland". There's a distinction there which you are willfully pretending not to be able to understand. --Jayron32 15:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

<undent> "That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain... " I don't care what Whitaker's says. The actual act of Parliament says there is One Kingdom created in 1707 by the name of Great Britain. --Jayron32 15:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, I just looked that up myself. There is a saying "The law is an ass". You are saying that England does not have a Queen. I don't believe that and I don't believe anyone else believes that either. Don't say it too loudly because you might be sent to the Tower.156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said England does not have a Queen. I said that there is no Queen of England, any more than there is a Queen of Yorkshire or Queen of Cornwall or Queen of any-other-territorial-division-of-that-land. England has a Queen. Her title is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is no Kingdom of England today. There is a Kingdom, which includes England, that is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Please pay attention and keep up. --Jayron32 15:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

She's also Queen of the Commonwealth. The fact that there's no law that says that doesn't make it any less real. Yorkshire never had a Queen, while Cornwall has a Duchess who may well become Queen (although I personally don't think that should happen while Parker - Bowles is alive). There is no law that says that she and her loyal subjects cannot call her Queen of England. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You can call her anything you damned well please. It doesn't mean there's a real, functional state called the Kingdom of England over which she is the sovereign. I can call her Queen of My Bedroom, and it doesn't make my bedroom a real, functional state. --Jayron32 16:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In this neck of the woods, we have Pearly Kings and Queens. There's no functional state - all there is is a rotten borough presided over by an elected mayor who's been removed for corruption. After George VI died Queen Elizabeth remained Queen although there was no functional state over which she presided. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That Queen Elizabeth was a Queen Consort, not a Queen Regnant. Upon George VI's death, she became formally the Dowager Queen Consort, but she preferred to be known as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. She never "presided" over anything; her husband reigned in the United Kingdom and other realms, but she was just his wife and later his widow. -- Jack of Oz 21:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

She isn't "Queen of the Commonwealth", as there is no such post: she is the Head of the Commonwealth, and Queen of 16 Commonwealth realms, one of which is the UK. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There are queens regnant and there are other types of queen, but they are queens nevertheless. There were (there may still be) Rajahs in India but their titles were not dependent on their territory being coterminous with a sovereign state. Victoria was Empress of India - her title was no less valid because India was not self - governing. I don't see that being a queen is any different from being a Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marquess or Duke - just a little more exalted. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much, you're correct there. There is no currently active titled Queen of England, nor is there a Kingdom of England today one could be queen of. There used to be, but they abolished it in 1707. --Jayron32 18:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Some neat stuff above. Just as a comparison, consider that both the US and Puerto Rico go to the Olympics. Matt Deres (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So does Hong Kong and China. Macau wants to as a seperate entity (and China also wants Macau to go), but they aren't allowed. They do go to the Asian Games and I think some other sports or games as a seperate entity. Nil Einne (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Annoying pony videos

May 25

Long periscope?

Would it be possible to build a periscope that is say, 100 miles long so you could see things that far away as if you were in the same room. Or is that more of a telescope of sorts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps using something like fiber optic cables which you called a periscope. But not in the traditional sense of the word, since the light would attenuate to a uniform blackness over such a distance. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As Medeis says, it would be like looking at something 100 miles away... Just through a tube. Dismas| 23:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly you can do that - but these days a camera, a long wire and a TV is easier! The glass that they use for optical fibre is amazingly clear (0.2dB/km according to our article)- so you'd get a reasonably bright image - but to maintain a focussed image over that distance would require that the light bounces repeatedly off the sides of the fibre. This means that you need a lot of fibres to maintain a complete image - and hence the result is going to be very pixelated. Obviously you're not reasonably able to pull a few million optical fibres over 100 miles - and without doing that, you just get better images with a digital camera. I suppose a 100 mile long telescope (or periscope...it makes no practical difference) would be possible. But the attenuation of the light due to the air inside the tube would require you to pump the air out - and the precision with which the pipe would have to be straight and the lenses perpendicular and free of even the slightest vibration would be daunting. Electronics just do it better. SteveBaker (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

IF you were looking into somebody else's room with a 100 mile long telescope, the vision would be distorted, due to the the rotation of the earth, and the telescope itself may be broken by window frames, etc. You would also need planning permission from the city council. If you really want to spy on someone 100 miles away, install TeamViewer on their PC, and remotely switch on their webcam. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 01:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

How would the rotation of the Earth distort anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant "curvature"? Given it is assumed by definition that periscopes have mirros/things to deal with angles, I wasn't too worried about pointing that out. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comparing conflicts.

With ISIS in the news again, my question is how they are able to make such rapid and swift progress against two formally powerful countries. CNN or Fox just don't go into context.

My main reference being the siege of Stalingrad. I mean, hundreds of thousands if not over a million perished during this conflict. The size and scale of the Eastern Front makes the ISIS skirmishes and battles look like something straight out of kindergarten.

Yet, ISIS are probably only slightly better equipped than the Soviets were, excluded the thousands of tanks. Slightly better than rag tag. And they survive a sustained, comprehensive aerial bombardment by the most powerful air force ever known. How!?

Then they take Palymra against an army that has powerful T72 tanks.

Is there something we dont know in this co flict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The main difference is that this bombing is not carpet bombing, it's very limited targeting drone strikes. The goal is to kill only ISIS fighters without killing civilians. In carpet bombing, you just kill everyone in the area. That's far more effective militarily, although you still need massive land forces to use in combination. Most of the land forces just aren't up to the task. You have a weak central government in Iraq, which has purged all the Sunnis from it's officer ranks, leaving it weakened and demoralized. You have Shiite militias, which really only care to fight when in Shia areas. And in Syria you have the much weakened government, due to years of civil war. The Kurds have done an effective job, but again only in Kurdish areas. It's going to take competent troops, which probably means Western troops, to get the job done. And since ISIS will probably behead or burn alive any prisoners, it would require overwhelming numbers to ensure that they never have the local superiority in numbers which might allow them to take prisoners. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You may have noticed that little is said about them until they take an oil producing site. There is only one viable resource in the region: oil. They can take 100 cities that do not produce oil and the concern is low. If they take a city that produces or refines oil, concern is high. From an American perspective (I assume you are American because you mention CNN/Fox), we are not overly concerned as long as the oil keeps flowing at a good price. We don't really have a need to one religious sect to rule over another. It reminds me of a quote from the Iraq-Iran war: The only problem is that we cannot have both sides lose. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Here in the US I hear about them when they commit a massacre or destroy antiquities. StuRat (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

When they commit a massacre or destroy antiquities, look at where they are. For example, radical Islam in Nigeria was not notable until they kidnapped a bunch of girls from a major oil producing area. Suddenly, they are in the news. Similarly, we didn't hear much about Ethiopian pirates until they captured a oil tanker. Suddenly, they are a major threat. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody outside of Erbil has ever given a shit about Erbil. At least not for Erbil's sake. Poor abundant Erbil. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

The main difference between ISIS and the government forces that are their main adversaries (outside Kurdish areas) is one of motivation. Fighters for ISIS believe that their cause is holy, and that if they die, they will go straight to paradise as heroes meriting reward. Their commitment is strong. As a result, ISIS is able to use tactics like sending armored vehicles to force their way to positions, then exploding the vehicles once they reach their positions, killing the ISIS fighters in the vehicle as well as their opponents, and allowing other ISIS fighters to then advance and take the positions. Government forces in the region are fighting for corrupt governments lacking in legitimacy and simply lack the fervor to stand against ISIS fighters willing to risk everything. Given the choice between dying in defense of their corrupt government or fleeing to safety, they tend to flee to safety. By contrast, ISIS fighters willingly sacrifice their lives. As for bombing, another factor is that most of ISIS's opponents (including US forces) are concerned about minimizing civilian casualties, whereas for ISIS, their cause is more important than individual lives. That allows ISIS to act more ruthlessly and with little restraint, whereas humanitarian concerns constrain U.S. and allied forces. Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between minimizing civilian casualties and minimizing acknowledgment of civilian casualties. The numbers in Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), Casualties of the Iraq War and Drone strikes in Pakistan aren't exactly consistent, but even the lowball counts smoke ISIS' death toll (excluding those killed when the US bombs a suspected ISIS target, then gives ISIS credit for apparently being there).

And let's not forget, aside from murder, intolerance and all that, a huge part of ISIS' mission is getting rid of those guys the West used to be mad at for killing even more civilians than America does. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

You're comparing multiple wars over a decade and a half with a single, recent conflict, in the case of ISIS. Also, I suspect that many ISIS massacres aren't reported, as there are no surviving witnesses or anyone allowed to investigate. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm comparing a bunch of conflicts, all under the same terror roof. Which one were you thinking of? ISIS is a latecomer, at least under that name, so they'll naturally have some catching up to do, but their formation itself was largely based on (and is sustained by) all sorts of people killing all sorts of civilians. Same general area. Many drone (and "normal air") strikes aren't reported for the same reason. That's why sites like Naming the Dead have to exist. Dead men tell no tales, no matter who kills them. Women and children, neither. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

How long was the IRT Third Avenue Line (redux)?

On May 20, Metrophil44 asked:

How long was the IRT Third Avenue Line?

I wondered how long this line was, but I can't find the length in the article. -- Metrophil44 (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

And I wrote in the thread:

I haven't found a source for the actual length but have asked a knowledgeable friend. Stay tuned. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC), corrected 21:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC).

I now have an answer, but it's from a knowledgeable friend of my friend, not from a published source, and I didn't get permission to attribute it. So this should be the correct information but I don't have a suitable reference for it to be used on Misplaced Pages. According to this unpublished information, the sections of the line were:

From	To	Miles
South Ferry	Chatham Sq.	1.3
City Hall	Chatham Sq.	1.3
Chatham Sq.	149th St.	8.4
149th St.	Gun Hill Rd.	5.5
Fordham Rd.	Bronx Park	0.3

Making 15.2 miles (24.5 km) end to end, plus 1.6 miles (2.6 km) in branches.

I was also given official lengths of the different Manhattan Railway el lines as given out by their chief engineer's office in 1909, but this was before the Dual Contracts extensions and therefore does not represent the final extent of the Third Avenue line.

• Manhattan:

Line	Miles
Second Avenue	7.44
Third Avenue	9.34
Sixth Avenue	10.89
Ninth Avenue	4.78
Suburban	0.15
Total	32.60

• Bronx:

Suburban

5.08

I hope this is useful. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

These numbers are extremely precise, implying your friend's friend has a source. Is there some reason he can't simply name the source, MTA Museum Brochure, or whatever? μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Ipanema_(brand)

There's no article for the Brazilian sandals brand Ipanema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.224.70 (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the Portuguese Misplaced Pages has such an article either. Their disambiguation page, pt:Ipanema, contains no footwear entries. -- ToE 06:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to create the article yourself! The Portuguese Misplaced Pages does have an article on Grendene who own and make the brand. Nanonic (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Living brain outside the body

What would the owner of that particular brain experience?

Seeing as we can sustain whole organs outside of the human body, if we did the same with a brain, is it possible at all to theorize what it would experience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Just dreaming, really. Not having access to the external functions of stimuli like touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight, it couldn't do anything else. It would simply be just like being asleep. 82.35.216.24 (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be possible to provide it with nerve inputs. We have a cochlear implant and visual prosthesis that work that way now, so it certainly is possible. StuRat (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

See also Brain in a vat. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Isolated brain and William and Mary. DuncanHill (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Madness, and death, in short order. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Stating from the get go that this is impossible, it would most likely be exquisite torture, and not just like being asleep. Compare with phantom pain and phantom limb. Although exact mechanisms are still being studied and disputed, it is likely that a combination of irritated severed nerve endings and mal-adaptation in the cortex case pain and other sensory sensations in the missing body part. That is just in one body part, and can sometimes already be crippling. Now imagine that for a whole body..... I guess you could argue that with the medical technology required to keep a disembodied brain alive (Clarke's three laws|indistinguishable from magic?), you could compensate for these things, but that is firmly in the realm of sci-fi. Fgf10 (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly; madness and death in short order. It's like asking what would a kidney do in a toilet, or a liver do in a swimming pool. Brains are organs, not magical gum drop chocolate fairy thingumies. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the OP specified that we have the magical ability to keep the brain alive, which means no death. If that wasn't the case, even madness couldn't occur, as there would be no conciousness without the rest of the body. Fgf10 (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is essentially what I said. The brain would just be in a dream state. There may be some sort of phantom limb syndrome at some point, but why do we not have that when we are asleep? When we are asleep, we can dream and do whatever we want, but our brains are disconnected from the body (so that we don't act out the dreams). KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 07:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Fair Use" or "Public Domain"

The photos on your site. How do I tell if they are "Fair Use" or "Public Domain"?

I am writing a trivia book and would like to use some of your photos, but I am not sure if I will have a copyright issue. It seems if I am reading correctly, the information on your site is "Fair Use" or "Public Domain" as long as I cite the source. Please advise and also let me know if this is not the case, how do I find out who to contact for permission to use a photo? Thanks

D. L. Milner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlmilner (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are interested in reusing content from Misplaced Pages, especially images, please read Misplaced Pages:Reusing Misplaced Pages content which contains details on how to do so. There is a section in there on reusing Misplaced Pages images, which also links to some longer reading if you have further questions. If you have any more specific questions regarding reuse of Misplaced Pages content, please let us know! --Jayron32 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Each picture has a different copyright status. All images have a description page; click on the large blue button at the bottom-right with the text "More details" to see it. That page will indicate what the copyright status is. Some pictures are Public Domain, some Fair Use (so they are owned by a third party), and some are on various copy-left licenses, mainly Creative Commons or GNU Free Document License. For example, the picture of the Taj Mahal is file:Taj_Mahal_in_March_2004.jpg, and it is GFDL. 19:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongHairedFop (talk • contribs)

There's no such thing as a "fair use image". Fair use is a set of (poorly defined) limitations on the power of copyright holders to restrict what you do with their works. The copyright owner can't choose to make an image "not fair use". Uses can be fair use or not; images can't. If an image on Misplaced Pages has a fair-use box in the "licensing" section, that only applies to a particular use of that image on Misplaced Pages. It says nothing about your rights.

Also, there's no such thing as "public domain as long as I cite the source". If something is in the public domain, it is not copyrighted and there are no copyright restrictions on its use. If an image's page doesn't explicitly say that it is in the public domain, it isn't. -- BenRG (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, that last sentence is probably not quite true. I would wager there are quite a few public-domain images on WP servers that are not identified as such. But you would have to find that out some other way.

(Note that the converse is not necessarily safe either — anyone can mark an image as public domain; it's a simple edit. It doesn't make it true.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Halloween and Autumn

Why is Halloween in autumn?

117.120.18.136 (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not, not Down Here anyway. -- Jack of Oz 05:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's scary. The crops die and winter comes. Nobody (aside from Australians, of course) wonders about ghosts and skeletons in spring. That's a time to live. See Halloween for details. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why wouldn't it be? It's not necessarily tied to some other season. That said, it's roots are based around harvest festivals of pagans. Harvesting is normally done in late summer and autumn. I'm a bit confused by the question and not really sure why you would think it should be in some other season. Dismas| 05:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't read the question as suggesting they chose the wrong season for Halloween to fall in. The OP just wants to know why it is so. -- Jack of Oz 05:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's the only time you can get pumpkins. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 06:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep. If we're going with why it has to stay in autumn, it gets dark sooner than it used to, so kids with early bedtimes can still have some gloomy fun, without freezing to actual death. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:12, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Boring reason: All Hallows' Eve is in autumn because All Hallows' Day is in autumn. Less boring reason: on the old Celtic calendar it's the beginning of the winter half of the year, when the life of summer is fading and thoughts turn to mortality. —Tamfang (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Natural Disasters in Christmas

Are there any hurricanes, tornadoes or bushfires in Christmas?

117.120.18.136 (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it's just another day, as far as Earth cares. These tornadoes happened around the same time the TV said the world was ending. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Here's the Black Christmas. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

And then the hurricane. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy. -- Jack of Oz 05:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

2005 massive earthquake (knocking the Earth out of orbit) and tsunami, on Dec. 26th. Does that count? Maybe it was a day late for Christmas, but it ruined my birthday (Dec. 27th). KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 06:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"knocking the Earth out of orbit" is a bit of an exaggeration. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami is the link we needed. The orbit changed EXCEEDINGLY subtly...less than a centimeter. Energy releases of all kinds alter our orbit minutely - so this was far from special in that regard. It happened in 2004, not 2005 - and it was the day after Xmas in the time zone where it happened and even though it was an incredible earthquake, the energy released was only about half of the largest ever nuclear weapon explosion. With around a quarter million people dead or missing as a direct result - the fate of your birthday is hardly relevant. This is a reference desk, not a tabloid newspaper, please stick to the facts. SteveBaker (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I got the year wrong. Sorry about that, Mr. Angry. Now shall we get back to the original question? (And I mentioned my birthday because I was in the f**king area at the time). KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 07:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk